AO3

• LIMITATION = A lack of internal validity

  • P: Milgram’s research has been criticised for lacking in realism.
  • E: Orne and Holland (1968) suggested the electric shocks were not real. In which case Milgram was not testing what he intended to test, i.e. the study lacked internal validity.
• LIMITATION = A lack of internal validity (2)

  • E: In addition, Perry (2013)’s recent research confirms this. She reported many of them expressed doubts about the shocks. However, Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a similar study where real shocks were given to a puppy. 54% of male participants and 100% of female participants delivered what they thought was a fatal shock.
  • E: If this was the case, Milgram was not really measuring obedience rates and his research would lack internal validity.
  • L: As such, we cannot be sure that Milgram’s findings and conclusions are valid.
• LIMITATION = Ethical issues

  • P: The ethical guidelines did not exist when Milgram conducted his research but he has been criticised for his lack of concern for his research participants.
  • E: For example, Milgram’s participants were deceived in knowledge that they were not informed that pain would be inflicted upon the learners.

  This made it impossible for participants to give informed consent. 

  The participants were also unaware of their ability and right to withdraw due to the prods.
• LIMITATION = Ethical issues (2)

  • E: Whilst Milgram argued that his participants were ‘free to leave at any time’ the use of prods in his procedure would have made it difficult for participants to remove themselves from the research.
  • L: As such, we must weigh up whether what we have learnt from his findings outweighs the potential costs to his participants.